In response to my post about the Schiavo autopsy on In the Agora, an anonymous poster that everyone there refers to as “Leon” left a typically amusing comment. He wrote:

I note also that Mark Furman, author and criminal investigator, has spent a number of weeks going over the totality of the records and will shortly deliver a book to the public.

I suggested that he should replace “author and criminal investigator” with “disgraced former cop and infamous racist who was last seen on television committing perjury in the OJ trial.” But alas, it’s true. Fuhrman does have a book coming out about the Schiavo case. And it hardly needs to be said that this book is being pimped by the Worldnutdaily, right? The marketing campaign for the book shows just how unbalanced the book will be, promising that it was written “with the complete cooperation of Terri Schiavo’s parents and siblings.” You know, the same people who encouraged Michael to move on with his life and find someone new and then used that against him in the media. The same people who threw out false accusations of abuse that were rejected by all of the medical personnel at the hospital who treated Terri and were dismissed by the courts with prejudice. The same people who foisted the uber-fraud Dr. Hammesfahr on the media and the public. But hey, lies are Fuhrman’s specialty.

At any rate, I’m sure Fuhrman’s book will receive an enormous amount of free advertising from Fox News. But I’m not gonna buy it. I’m waiting for Kato Kaelin’s expose on the Hilton Sisters and Rosa Lopez’s investigation into North Korean nuclear testing.

Comments

And, IIRC, Furman is responsible for the solving of the Martha Moxley murder. His book Murder in Greenwich, I’m told, was an outstanding accomplishment of criminal investigation. We would be wrong to immediately reject a man’s work on the basis of his use of an offensive word, particularly given the circumstances in which that use came to light.

This A@@hat was on Hannity the other day, where he plain and simple said that Terry was strangled by her husband. It was one of the most vile things I have heard on the radio. Scumbag is to nice a term for this man.

We would be wrong to immediately reject a man’s work on the basis of his use of an offensive word, particularly given the circumstances in which that use came to light.

I’ll meet you halfway on this one. First, I’ll say that it’s not merely Fuhrman’s use of an offensive word that makes me despise him. There’s a lot more to it than that. Multiple witnesses testified under oath that he not only used the word “nigger”, he truly was a racist who had said things that should get anyone thrown off any police force in the nation (“If I had my way, I’d gather all the niggers together and burn them.”). One of them produced audiotape of Fuhrman saying incredibly racist things in direct relation to his work as a cop. And not only did her commit perjury in denying that, he also plead the 5th when asked both if he had ever planted evidence in any case or in the OJ case specifically. I think there is more than ample evidence to condemn Fuhrman as a racist cop who was rightly disgraced and forced off the police force.

Having said that, I will of course agree that that doesn’t necessarily mean that what he says about some other subject is necessarily false. I am aware that he won high praise for his book on the Greenwich murders, though I know nothing about the case specifically. But this new book is based upon his access to Terri’s parents and siblings, the very people responsible for lie after lie in that situation. And he has already gone on television saying ridiculous things about the case, claiming that she was strangled by Michael when the doctors and nurses, and the police, at the time of her collapse – who would certainly have been looking for evidence of such – rejected that claim at the time. So did Terri’s brother, who was there with Michael when the paramedics arrived. It was only 5 years later, after they came to a disagreement over whether to give up hope and let her die, that the family suddenly turned from adoring Michael to claiming he was abusive and may have killed her. There was zero evidence for that at the time of her collapse and there is zero evidence for it now. The parents should be ashamed of themselves for their sudden and convenient attempts to smear the man, and Fuhrman is acting as nothing more than a media whore looking to make a fast buck by lending credence to their vicious attacks on him.

I may be getting confused, because it was a long time ago, but didn’t it come out during the OJ trial that Fuhrman either planted evidence to frame black suspects or talked about doing so?

Yes. On the famous tapes on which he was interviewed by the TV/movie producer, he spoke about planting evidence to set up “niggers”. In a private court session not seen by either the jurors nor the media, Fuhrman was asked under oath if he had ever planted evidence in any case, and if he had planted evidence in that particular case. He plead the 5th to avoid answering both questions. Judge Ito ruled that the jury should not be told that he had done so, but that they should only be told that he was “unavailable” for further questioning and that they could consider that fact when determining his credibility.

Fuhrman’s excuse for all of this – after perjuring himself on the stand and claiming that he had never said it and anyone who said he had was a liar – was that he was just “assuming a role” to give the producer insight into how a racist cop might think or talk. But the producer testified that in fact, the show he was helping her develop was not about racist cops but about women cops and that she had told him before the interviews to just be totally honest about life as a cop and the kinds of things that went on.

In light of that, isn’t Timothy Sandefur’s comment rather odd? I’d be quite happy to reject the work of someone who has admitted planting evidence.

Also, Ed, what was the justification for withholding the 5th amendment plea from the jury? That it would itself be incriminating? Surely that’s up to the jury to decide. And when did all this become public?

In light of that, isn’t Timothy Sandefur’s comment rather odd? I’d be quite happy to reject the work of someone who has admitted planting evidence.

Not necessarily. He’s right that those facts don’t necessarily mean that everything else he might say about cases in which he has no involvement is wrong. And he’s right that Fuhrman won high praise for his book on the Greenwich murders and is thought to have cracked the case. But as I said, I think there are other more pertinent reasons to be skeptical of his contributions on this particular case.

Also, Ed, what was the justification for withholding the 5th amendment plea from the jury? That it would itself be incriminating? Surely that’s up to the jury to decide. And when did all this become public?

I think I misstated when I said that the media was not aware of this hearing that was not in front of the jury. Court TV reported on it on September 7, 1995 saying:

Judge Lance Ito rejected the defense’s attempt to force former detective Mark Fuhrman to testify again before the jury. But the judge angered prosecutors by ruling that he would tell jurors that Fuhrman was not available for further testimony and that they may consider his unavailability in evaluating his credibility as witness.

The judge then halted the proceedings and granted angry prosecutors a chance to appeal the ruling by noon Friday. The jury was then dismissed until Friday when the defense is expected to rest its case.

In his ruling, Judge Ito conceded that Simpson was prejudiced by the fact that Fuhrman was not cross-examined about defense witnesses Natalie Singer, Roderic Hodge and Laura McKinny. But, he said, California case law clearly states that it’s inappropriate to present to the jury a witness whom the lawyers know will invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The jury was not aware of any of that, but the media was and it was published at the time.

So basically, California case law favours the supposed right of the witness not to have to invoke the 5th over that of the defendant to present all potentially exculpatory evidence? That’s pretty screwed up.

The site is currently under maintenance. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.